The popular market below seems to be having a conflict between the common sense definition of "major topic" and the specific criteria that the creator defined. Will this lead to a controversial resolution?
This market will resolve YES if at least 3 people complain about the resolution of that market, on Manifold, Discord or anywhere else. To prevent market manipulation, nobody who bought YES in this market can count for this criterion. I will attempt to resolve in a way that rules out other methods of market manipulation as well.
A complaint needs to include a reasonably detailed argument for why the market resolved wrong (at least 1 full paragraph).
1,000
3.00@Shump Because people who are really bullish on AI will wish to overstate its importance, while people who are more skeptical are keen to downplay it. So even if the criteria for resolving the question are clear, it will cause discussion and people will argue over it.
@MatthewBarnett I doubt there's anything you can do to stop a few people from complaining. You've already made the criteria pretty clear.
@MatthewBarnett I think you've been a good market-runner, but I do think its very possible there will be disagreement about what counts as separate questions:
"Asking "at least two separate questions" means that the moderator must pose two semantically distinct and individual queries, each intended to elicit a unique response, specifically about artificial intelligence. In other words, simply repeating the same question doesn't count as two separate questions, even if the question is asked twice, first to one candidate, and then a second time to the other candidate. Moreover, asking two distinct questions without waiting for the answer to the first one counts as two separate questions for the purpose of this question. For example, a clear positive instance would be asking first, "How do you plan to manage the existential risks from AI?" and then later asking, "What are your proposals to mitigate job loss due to automation from AI?" These are two separate questions because they cover different facets of artificial intelligence—existential risk and employment. A clear negative example would be if the moderator simply asked, "How do you plan to manage the existential risks from AI?" to one candidate, and then later said "Same question to you" to the other candidate. Even though the question is asked twice, it's not considered two "separate" questions because it's a repetition of the same query."
Especially
Moreover, asking two distinct questions without waiting for the answer to the first one counts as two separate questions for the purpose of this question.
I can definitely imagine a moderator saying something like "How do you plan to manage the changes to the economy from AI, and how will you do so while remaining competitive with other nations like China?" and then everyone in the comments argues about how many questions that is.
@MatthewBarnett It’s probably too late now but people will inevitably miss the description and complain that just two separate (but potentially combined) questions at a single debate shouldn’t count as a ‘major topic’. It should now be clear that that’s how you’ve operationalized ‘major topic’, but it’s still a pretty idiosyncratic measure of ‘major’.
@MatthewBarnett My initial suggestion was going to be retitling the market, but it's a little messy since you have two distinct ways that AI can be a major topic. I think my best suggestion would just be to add "[see description]" or something at the end. Perhaps "[mentioned in two questions OR all candidates discuss]". Just something to clarify to people reading the title that you've chosen a specific operationalization of "major topic" that may differ from the commonsense interpretation in some cases.
@MatthewBarnett I think you can do some small changes to just make it more likely that people read the description before they bet on whatever they think a major topic is. @Conflux's suggestion can help, and moving Roon's tweet to the bottom might be another way to prevent people from just betting on that. Start the description with a short version of the resolution criteria, so people are more likely to read it.
To prevent a controversial resolution of this market you might want to edit out "not" in "nobody ... can not count".
CORRECTED. Everything is awesome.
Yeah I think there's a lot of different ways someone could have written the resolution criteria based on the original Roon tweet, so some controversy seems inevitable to me. Many people won't read the full resolution criteria and will just bet on the title, which is often a recipe for drama.
@Joshua I generally don't like arguing with resolution criteria, as long as people define them that's fine with me, but I think it's clear from where the market percent currently stands that it's either not in line with the common sense meaning of major topic or badly mispriced. A major topic would be something like abortion, education, Russia-Ukraine, etc. I'm not sure how often these topics get asked, so maybe the market creator is right though.
@Joshua I have several markets on frequent talking points, with different criteria than Matthew's market. Unsurprisingly, education is on track to resolve YES. 'Woke' and 'classified documents' not quite (yet at least). The criterion is very simple, which hopefully prevents controversy (they're also tiny markets).
you may wanna edit your comment here as it just links to the same market it was posted on, not this one